DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Figures (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Figures (PDF) LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Distribution of the 16 FBC Power Plants in Pennsylvania ................................... 3 Figure 1.2 Annual Coal Refuse Consumed by FBC in Anthracite and Bituminous regions............................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.3 Cumulative coal refuse consumed by coal region................................................. 6 Figure 1.4 Acres of Mine Reclaimed by FBCs in Anthracite and Bituminous regions.......... 8 Figure 1.5 Distribution of 21 Coal-Fired Power Plants .......................................................... 9 Figure 1.6 Locations of beneficial use sites discussed in this book........................................ 11 Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Map of Physiographic Provinces of PA. .............................................................. 20 Figure 2.2 Principal structural features of the Anthracite Coal Fields (from Wood et al., 1986) ................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 2.3(a). Cross-section of the geologic structure of the Allegheny Plateau (from King 1977) ............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2.3(b) Cross-section of the geologic structure of the Ridge and Valley Province ...... 25 Figure 2.4 Generalized location of surface anticlines in the Appalacian Plateau’s Province. (from Beardsley et al.1999) .............................................................................. 27 Figure 2.5 Generalized stratigraphic sections of the Allegheny and Conemaugh Group (from Edmunds et al., 1999) ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 2.6(a) Lower Kittanning and Middle Kittanning Coals and brackish overburden strata from Clearfield County, PA. (from Brady et al., 1998)....................... 30 Figure 2.6(b) Upper Kittanning and Lower Freeport Coals and nonmarine overburden strata from Fayette County, PA .................................................................... 31 Figure 2.7 Generalized columnar sections showing names, average thickness of coals (in ft), and intervals between coal beds in the Pennsylvania Anthracite fields. Figure is primarily from Wood et al. (1986). Information on calcareous zones in the Northern Field has been supplemented by data from Edmunds et al. (1998) and Inners and Fabiny (1997) .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 2.8 Stratigraphic interval from the Mammoth Coal zone up to the Primrose coal bed at the Wadesville site Figure 2.4. Generalized location of surface anticlines in the Appalacian Plateau’s Province. (from Beardsley et al., 1999).............. 36 Figure 2.9 A schematic of the outcrop at mile marker 138 along Interstate 81, near McAdoo, PA, showing the contact between the Mauch Chunk and Pottsville Formations (modified from Bolles and Geyer, 1976)...................................................... 37 Figure 2.10 Block diagram showing shallow, intermediate, and regional (deep) groundwater flow systems in the Bituminous Coal Region of western PA, (from Parizek 1979) ......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.11 Idealized pattern of groundwater flow in the Mercer Quadrangle, PA ............... 40 Figure 2.12 Bimodal distribution of pH for (a) bituminous mines and (b) anthracite mine discharges in PA. Bituminous data are from Table 8.2 in Brady et al. (1998) and anthracite data are from Growitz et al., (1985). Bituminous data are displayed from stratigraphic group and anthracite data by coal field........................................................ 41 xxvii Figure 2.13 Map of collieries in Wyoming Basin of the Northern Field (from Hollowell,1973) ................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 2.14 Schematic diagram of water flow through the mines (eg. Barrier pillar breaches) in the Wyoming Basin, (from Hollowell 1973).................. 43 Figure 2.15 Jeddo Tunnel drainage system (from Hollowell 1999). ..................................... 44 Figure 2.16 Water discaharge from the Jeddo Tunnel in Hazleton, and Wapwallopen Creek near Wapwallopen, PA, October 1, 1974 to September 30, 1975 (from Growitz et al. 1985) ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 2.17(a) Discharge from the Jeddo Tunnel - water years 1996-1998 (from Ballaron 1999) .............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 2.17(b) Precipitation data from Hazleton, PA 1996-1998 (from Fox et al., 2001) .... 47 Figure 2.18 (a) and (b) Boxplots showing differences in pH and sulfates from the four anthracite fields in eastern PA. (from Brady et al., 1998) ................................................ 50 Figure 2.19 Anthracite production, 1890-1995 (from Eggleston, et al., 1999) ...................... 50 Figure 2.20 Typical anthracite underground mining practices (modified from Eggleston et al., 1999). ..................................................................................................... 51 Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 USDA Soil Triangle Classification Chart (The Asphalt Institute, 1978)............. 54 Figure 3.2 Typical display of compaction test data ............................................................... 55 Figure 3.3(a) Plot of Proctor Density lab test results............................................................. 56 Figure 3.3 (b) Plot of Proctor Density lab test results............................................................ 56 Figure 3.4(a) Plot of Maximum Dry Density......................................................................... 57 Figure 3.4(b) Plot of Optimum Moisture Content ................................................................. 57 Figure 3.4(c) Field compaction tests of ash from various ash sources .................................. 58 Figure 3.5 Map of NEPCO site showing Big Gorilla Pit....................................................... 60 Figure 3.6 Map of Reading Anthracite Co. Knickerbocker Site............................................ 64 Figure 3.7 Coal ash conveyor at left of photo delivers ash from Gilberton Power Company FBC plant to mineral processing equipment shown in center of photo to produce an aggregate which meets PA Department of Transportation specifications..................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 3.8 Effect of lime addition on leachability of minor constituents and trace constituents ....................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 3.9 Effect of lime addition on leachability of minor constituents and trace constituents ....................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3.10 Effect of lime addition on compressive strength................................................. 68 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Location of coal ash beneficial use mine sites in PA ........................................... 73 Figure 4.2 Westwood FBC plant near Tremont in Southern Anthracite Field ....................... 74 Figure 4.3 Site map of Northampton Fuels – Alden mine site ............................................... 79 Figure 4.4 Reclaimed area at Northampton Fuels – Alden site ............................................. 80 Figure 4.5(a) Alkalinity in groundwater monitoring points at Northampton Alden site....... 82 Figure 4.5(b) Sulfate in groundwater monitoring points at Northampton Alden site............. 82 Figure 4.6 Site map of Wheelabrator – Morea mine site....................................................... 83 Figure 4.7(a) Ash placement in pits........................................................................................ 84 xxviii Figure 4.7(b) Wildlife plantings....................... ...................................................................... 84 Figure 4.7(c) Morea minepool and FBC plant........................................................................ 84 Figure 4.7(d) Extensive reclamation area......................... ...................................................... 84 Figure 4.8(a) Acidity in minepool and stream at Wheelabrator site....................................... 86 Figure 4.8(b) Calcium concentration in minepool and stream at Wheelabrator site .............. 87 Figure 4.9 Map of B-D Mining site showing permit boundary, ash disposal areas and monitoring locations ......................................................................................................... 88 Figure 4.10(a) Culm, fuel processing, and conveyor to Gilberton Power Plant.................... 89 Figure 4.10(b) Silt dam and adjacent ash reclamation area................................................... 89 Figure 4.10(c) Extensive reclamation area ............................................................................. 89 Figure 4.10(d) Gilberton Shaft pumping station.................................................................... 89 Figure 4.11 Aerial photograph of B-D Mining and Reading Anthracite permit areas and monitoring locations ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project a Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem
    The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project A Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem Michael C. Korb, P.E. Environmental Program Manager Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) Wilkes Barre District Office [email protected] www.depweb.state.pa.us Abstract Fifty-seven years ago, Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Mine Drainage Commission recommended that the Conowingo Tunnel, an expensive, long-range solution to the Anthracite Mine Drainage problem, be “tabled” and that a cheaper, short-range “job- stimulus” project be implemented instead. Today Pennsylvania’s anthracite region has more than 40 major mine water discharges, which have a combined average flow of more than 285,000 gallons per minute (GPM). Two of these average more than 30,000 GPM, 10 more of the discharges are greater than 6,000 GPM, while another 15 average more than 1,000 GPM. Had the Conowingo Tunnel Project been completed, most of this Pennsylvania Anthracite mine water problem would have been Maryland’s mine water problem. Between 1944 and 1954, engineers of the US Bureau of Mines carried out a comprehensive study resulting in more than 25 publications on all aspects of the mine water problem. The engineering study resulted in a recommendation of a fantastic and impressive plan to allow the gravity drainage of most of the Pennsylvania anthracite mines into the estuary of the Susquehanna River, below Conowingo, Maryland, by driving a 137-mile main tunnel with several laterals into the four separate anthracite fields. The $280 million (1954 dollars) scheme was not executed, but rather a $17 million program of pump installations, ditch installation, stream bed improvement and targeted strip-pit backfilling was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania
    Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania FORWARD ................................................................................................................................ i PREFACE................................................................................................................................... ii Letters of endorsement from IMCC, ACAA and environmental groups Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... xix List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xxvii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................xxxvi List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... xxxx Chapter 1. Overview: Coal Ash Beneficial Use and Mine Land Reclamation................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION—PENNSYLVANIA’S ABANDONED MINE LAND PROBLEM .... 1 1.2 FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION (FBC) POWER PLANTS........................................... 2 1.2.1 Creation of the FBC Power-Generating Industry ................................................... 2 1.2.2 Operation of FBC Power Plants.............................................................................. 3 1.2.3 Distribution of FBC Plants in Pennsylvania ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Knot Mine Drainage Tunnel –
    QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF STREAM WATER DRAINING MINED AREAS OF THE UPPER SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, 2005-20071 Charles A. Cravotta III,2 and John M. Nantz Abstract: Hydrologic effects of abandoned anthracite mines were documented by continuous streamflow gaging coupled with synoptic streamflow and water- quality monitoring in headwater reaches and at the mouths of major tributaries in the upper Schuylkill River Basin, Pa., during 2005-2007. Hydrograph separation of the daily average streamflow for 10 streamflow-gaging stations was used to evaluate the annual streamflow characteristics for October 2005 through September 2006. Maps showing stream locations and areas underlain by underground mines were used to explain the differences in total annual runoff, base flow, and streamflow yields (streamflow/drainage area) for the gaged watersheds. For example, one stream that had the lowest yield (59.2 cm/yr) could have lost water to an underground mine that extended beneath the topographic watershed divide, whereas the neighboring stream that had the highest yield (97.3 cm/yr) gained that water as abandoned mine drainage (AMD). Although the stream-water chemistry and fish abundance were poor downstream of this site and others where AMD was a major source of streamflow, the neighboring stream that had diminished streamflow met relevant in-stream water-quality criteria and supported a diverse fish community. If streamflow losses could be reduced, natural streamflow and water quality could be maintained in the watersheds with lower than normal yields. Likewise, stream restoration could lead to decreases in discharges of AMD from underground mines, with potential for decreased metal loading and corresponding improvements in downstream conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mine Water Resources of the Anthracite Coal Fields of Eastern Pennsylvania
    Mine Water Resources of the Anthracite Coal Fields of Eastern Pennsylvania In partnership with the following major contributors and Technical Committee Organizations represented: The United States Geological Survey, PA Water Science Center Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., LLC (posthumously) Susquehanna River Basin Commission Dauphin County Conservation District Ian C. Palmer-Researcher PA Department of Environmental Protection-- Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, & Pottsville District Mining Office MINE WATER RESOURCES OF THE ANTHRACITE REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA Foreword: Dedication to Roger J. Hornberger, P.G. (Robert E. Hughes) PART 1. Mine Water of the Anthracite Region Chapter 1. Introduction to the Anthracite Coal Region (Robert E. Hughes, Michael A. Hewitt, and Roger J. Hornberger, P.G.) Chapter 2. Geology of the Anthracite Coal Region (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., Caroline M. Loop, Keith B.C. Brady, P.G., Nathan A. Houtz, P.G.) Chapter 3. Colliery Development in the Anthracite Coal Fields (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., David L. Williams, Daniel J. Koury and Keith A. Laslow, P.G.) Chapter 4. A Geospatial Approach to Mapping the Anthracite Coal Fields (Michael A. Hewitt, Robert E. Hughes & Maynard L. (Mike) Dunn, Jr., P.G.) Chapter 5. The Development and Demise of Major Mining in the Northern Anthracite Coal Field (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., and Michael A. Hewitt) Chapter 6. The Development of Mining and Mine Drainage Tunnels of the Eastern Middle Anthracite Coal Field (Robert E. Hughes, Michael A. Hewitt, Jerrald Hollowell. P.G., Keith A. Laslow, P.G., and Roger J.
    [Show full text]
  • NREL: a Year in Clean Energy Innovations | a Review of NREL’S 2010 Feature Stories
    NREL: A Year in Clean Energy Innovations Innovations Energy in Clean Year A NREL: NREL: A Year in Clean Energy Innovations | A Review of NREL’s 2010 Feature Stories Feature 2010 NREL’s of Review A A Review of NREL’s 2010 Feature Stories National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3305 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC NREL/MK-6A41-50074 • April 2011 Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Cover photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL/PIX 17848 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 FUEL CELLS & HYDROGEN 50 Putting the Forklift before the Horseless Carriage 50 ADVANCED VEHICLES & FUELS 3 Hydrogen Bus Lets Lab Visitors Glimpse Future 52 NREL Battery Testing Capabilities Get a Boost 3 Building Better Batteries for Cars and Spacecraft 5 GEOTHERMAL 54 NREL Helps Corporate Fleets Go Green 7 IKEA Geothermal System Could Inform Others 54 BIOMASS 9 LABORATORY OF THE FUTURE 56 NREL to Help Scale Up Biofuels Operations 9 Green Computing Helps in Zero Energy Equation 56 High-Speed Pipeline Revs Up Biomass Analysis 11 Sustainable Solutions Abundant in New Offices 58 Improved Labs Energize Biomass Research 13 New Low-Energy Building a Landscape
    [Show full text]
  • SRBC 2011 Anthracite Region Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy
    December 2011 Susquehanna Publication 279 River Basin Anthracite Region Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy About this Report he largest source of Anthracite Coal in light of current funding limitations. Twithin the United States is found However, opportunities exist in the This technical report, Anthracite in the four distinct Anthracite Coal Anthracite Coal Region that could Region Mine Drainage Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. encourage and assist in the restoration The four fields – Northern, Eastern- of its lands and waters. Remediation Strategy, includes: Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River For example, the numerous underground introduction to the region’s Basin; the remaining portions are in the mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold geology & mining history; Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna vast quantities of water that could be mining techniques and watershed portion covers nearly 517 utilized by industry or for augmenting square miles (Figure 1). streamflows during times of drought. impacts; In addition, the large flow discharges strategy methodology; The sheer size of these four Anthracite indicative of the Anthracite Region also discussion of data findings; Coal Fields made this portion of hold hydroelectric development potential Pennsylvania one of the most important that can offset energy needs and, at the basin-scale restoration plan; resource extraction regions in the United same time, assist in the treatment of the and States and helped spur the nation’s utilized AMD discharge. recommendations. Industrial Revolution. Anthracite Coal became the premier fuel source of To help address the environmental nineteenth and early twentieth century impacts while promoting the resource America and heated most homes and development potential of the Anthracite businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study
    Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of a Hydroelectric Installation at the Jeddo Mine Drainage Tunnel A Study Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites Joseph Owen Roberts and Gail Mosey Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Interagency Agreement IAG-09-1719 and Task No WFD3.1000. NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-7A30-51321 February 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of a Hydroelectric Installation at the Jeddo Mine Drainage Tunnel A Study Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites Joseph Owen Roberts and Gail Mosey Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1000 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-7A30-51321 Golden, CO 80401 February 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This manuscript has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).
    [Show full text]
  • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1985
    RECONNAISSANCE OF MINE DRAINAGE IN THE COAL FIELDS OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA By Douglas J. Growitz, Lloyd A. Reed, and Mark M. Beard U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4274 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write Copies of this report can be to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch P.O. Box 1107 U.S. Geological Survey Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1107 Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 234-5888) II CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Purpose and scope 1 Methods of study 2 Description of the study area 2 Coal fields 2 Coal production 2 Mine drainage 4 Sources 4 Discharge and water quality 4 Northern Field 4 Forest City to Carbondale 4 Carbondale to Scranton 7 Scranton to Pittston 7 Wilkes-Barre 7 Shickshinny 7 Summary and discussion 7 Eastern Middle Field 10 Freeland 10 Beaver Meadows 10 Hazleton 10 Sheppton 15 Nuremberg 15 Summary and discussion 15 Western Middle Field 17 Mahanoy City 17 Shenandoah 17 Girardville 17 Ashland 21 Mount Carmel 21 Shamokin 21 Trevorton 21 Summary and discussion 21 Southern Field 25 Jim Thorpe 25 Coaldale 25 Ginther 25 Tamaqua ' 25 Brockton 29 Middleport 29 New Philadelphia 29 Frackville 29 Pottsville and St Glair 29 Minersville 29 Heckschervllle 29 Tremont 36 Joliett 36 Suedburg 36 Tower City 36 III CONTENTS ( cont inued ) Page Southern Field-(continued) Valley View 36 Wiconisco 36 Stony Creek near Dauphin 43 Summary and discussion 43 Effects of mine drainage on streams 43 The Susquehanna River and its tributaries 43 Nescopeck Creek 46 Catawissa Creek 46 Shamokin Creek 47 Mahanoy Creek 47 Mahantango Creek 48 Wiconisco Creek 48 Stony Creek near Dauphin 48 Swatara Creek 48 The Delaware River and its tributaries 49 Lehigh River 49 Schuylkill River 50 Summary 50 Selected references 53 ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4. Coal Ash Beneficial Use (Conventional Ash Placement) on Anthracite Mine Sites
    CHAPTER 4. COAL ASH BENEFICIAL USE (CONVENTIONAL ASH PLACEMENT) ON ANTHRACITE MINE SITES Roger J. Hornberger, Sharon A. Hill, Michael J. Menghini, Thomas D. Owen, Daniel J. Koury 4.1 INTRODUCTION The spatial distribution of permitted beneficial use coal ash sites in the Anthracite Region is closely related to several key aspects of the mining history of the region. One hundred and five years of anthracite coal production (1890 – 1995) is shown in Figure 2.19 (from Eggleston, et al. 1999), wherein underground mining accounted for most of the coal production prior to 1950, and surface mine production increased steadily from the 1920’s and surpassed deep mining by around 1960. Underground mining in the Anthracite Region started out small in the late 1700’s, but by 1850, there were 1000-foot deep shafts and extensive lateral development of gangways and rock tunnels in numerous collieries of the anthracite coal fields. Historical accounts of this early mine development in the region are found in Miller and Sharpless (1985) and Wallace (1981). The Department of Mines and Mineral Industries of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania produced annual reports of coal production from 1870 to 1972, and its successors, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, produced these statistical reports from 1972 to the present. Those reports state that there was no accurate record of underground mine production prior to 1870, that anthracite coal production for that year was 14,172,004 tons, and that anthracite production peaked in 1917, at 100,445,299 tons. In addition to the extensive network of colliery development features underground, the effects of all of this anthracite mining on the landscape of the anthracite region included thousands of large coal refuse (or culm) banks, and many thousands of mine subsidence features.
    [Show full text]
  • Little-Nescopeck-Water-Quality.Pdf
    ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTING ACID MINE DRAINAGE TO THE LITTLE NESCOPECK CREEK WATERSHED, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AND AN ABATEMENT PLAN TO MITIGATE IMPAIRED WATER QUALITY IN THE WATERSHED Publication No. 204 July 1999 Paula B. Ballaron, P.G. Hydrogeologist, Susquehanna River Basin Commission Christopher M. Kocher, Director Rivers Program, Wildlands Conservancy Jerrald R. Hollowell, P.G. Consultant Prepared in cooperation with Thomas J. Kerr, Executive Director This report was prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, under Grant ME96114. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director John T. Hicks, N.Y. Commissioner Scott J. Foti., N.Y. Alternate James M. Seif, Pa. Commissioner Irene B. Brooks, Pa. Alternate Jane T. Nishida, Md. Commissioner J.L. Hearn, Md. Alternate Major General Jerry L. Sinn, U.S. Commissioner Colonel Bruce A. Berwick, U.S. Alternate The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact* among the states of Maryland, New York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congress and state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state, and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission's goal is to coordinate the planning, conservation, management, utilization, development and control of basin water resources among the public and private sectors. *Statutory Citations: Federal - Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 (December 1970); Maryland - Natural Resources Sec. 8-301 (Michie 1974); New York - ECL Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Pennsylvania Coal Regions
    CHAPTER 2. GEOLOGY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COAL REGIONS Roger J. Hornberger, Caroline M. Loop, Keith B. C. Brady, Nathan A. Houtz The geology of the Anthracite and Bituminous Coal Regions of Pennsylvania is fundamental to most of the contents of this book. Since most of the coal ash placement sites described in this book are in the anthracite coal fields, the geology of the Anthracite Region is emphasized. However, the significant differences and similarities between the anthracite and bituminous regions, in their regional-scale physiography and local-scale topography, geologic structure, stratigraphy and hydrogeology will be briefly discussed in this chapter. 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Region is located in the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains as shown on Figure 2.1. The Valley and Ridge Province and other provinces and sections of the Appalachian Highlands were described in Fenneman (1938) and delineated on a U.S. Geological Survey Map by Fenneman and Johnson (1946). The province extends for a distance of 1200 miles from the St. Lawrence Lowland to Alabama, according to Thornbury (1965) who calls it the Ridge and Valley Province. This province is generally divided into three sections: a northern section also known as the Hudson-Champlain section; a middle section reaching from the Delaware River to the New River in southern Virginia; and a southern section from southern Virginia to the end of the highlands in Alabama. The width of the Valley and Ridge Province ranges from about 20 miles in New York near the Hudson River to about 80 miles wide in central Pennsylvania between Williamsport and Harrisburg, according to Hunt (1974) and Thornbury (1965).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Amd Pollutant Loading on Streams in the Hazleton Pa Area1
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 EFFECTS OF AMD POLLUTANT LOADING ON STREAMS IN THE HAZLETON PA AREA1 Justin J. Mendinsky2 and Brian A. Dempsey Abstract. A baseline water quality study of streams impacted by acid mine drainage (AMD) within the Hazleton, PA area was undertaken to determine sources of acidity, aluminum, iron, manganese, and sulfate with the long-term objective of development of regional abatement strategies. Sample site locations were identified for the Black Creek, Little Nescopeck and Nescopeck Creek watersheds, consisting of main-stem locations and tributaries both upstream and downstream of suspected AMD sources. Flow measurements were conducted at each sample location to calculate mass loadings of AMD contaminants. Data will be used to prepare Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports to determine the required percent removals of acidity and total Al, Fe, and Mn in order to comply with PA water quality standards. Discharge from the Jeddo Tunnel was found to be the largest source of AMD contamination in the Little Nescopeck and Nescopeck Creek watersheds, with an average pH of 4.30 and contributing average mass loadings exceeding 7750 kg/day (17,000 lb/day) of acidity, 1350 kg/day (2900 lb/day) Al, 390 kg/day (860 lb/day) Fe, and 630 kg/day (1350 lb/day) Mn to the Little Nescopeck Creek based on two sampling expeditions. Discharge from the Jeddo Tunnel was compared to historic water quality data for this source, demonstrating improvement in water quality over time. Discharge from the Gowen Mine was the major source of AMD contamination to Black Creek, which also flows into Nescopeck Creek.
    [Show full text]